Top Appellate Reversals: Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Superheroes like clear-cut outcomes, but Warner Bros. was in a quandary. Its big-budget Superman epic, "Man of Steel," was slated for a June 2013 release even though - as the year began - ownership of the caped crusader remained unclear.

Did the studio have the rights, or can the two comic strip writers who invented him reclaim them? The case seemed to hinge on a 2001 deal in which one of the writers' heirs regranted copyright to the studio. But dueling letters over the exact terms of the agreement left the matter murky.

Then-U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson ruled for co-creator Jerome Siegel's heirs. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel held in January 2013 that Larson failed to grasp that a 2001 letter from the heirs' then-lawyer constituted an acceptance of the terms the parties had negotiated and thus created a valid contract. Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 55863 (9th Cir., Jan. 10, 2013).

"Our presentation was simple," said Daniel M. Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in explaining his argument to the 9th Circuit panel. "A deal is a deal."

"It was documented by letter, even though a complete settlement agreement never happened because the family thought if they didn't sign they were free to walk away," he added. "But that's not the law."

Plaintiffs' attorney Marc Toberoff of Toberoff & Associates PC has filed further appeals.

Warner Bros., the happy client, sent Petrocelli a wall poster showing his face on Superman's body. The caption: Super Defender. "And my kids dressed as Superman for Halloween," Petrocelli said.

- JOHN ROEMER

<!-- Top Appellate Reversals: Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. -->